Petitioner filed his return 12 days late. He filed an application under section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay, citing COVID-19-related constraints. PCIT  rejected the application, holding that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return, inter alia noting that public transport was operating at 50% capacity in late December 2021 and that assessee had sufficient time to file, and referring to CBDT Circular No. 09/2015. On writ the Court held that   PCIT had not dealt with various averments made by petitioner/applicant and had rejected the application for condonation of delay in a mechanical manner.   PCIT who admittedly exercises powers under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, acts as a quasi-judicial body and is under an obligation to pass a reasoned order. Since the order, except stating that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return of income, did not deal with the detailed application filed by the petitioner/assessee, PCIT had not dealt with various averments made by petitioner and had rejected the application for condonation of delay in a mechanical manner, which was clearly unsustainable. Therefore, the order was to be set aside, and the matter was remanded back to PCIT   for a de novo consideration to decide the application. CBDT Circular No. 09/2015, dated 9-6-2015.  (AY. 2021-22)